Currently counters and maxhp reduction are both balanced around their interaction, changing the way they interact would necessitate a look at the power of both counterskill units and maxhp hate on a case by case basis case.Your current argument simply revolves around you wishing the mechanics of the game to be different because you feel that they should be, i could as well argue that counters should be checked at each stage of a grimoire or that closing should resolve after each grimoire/openskill, i dont though because i understand the rules of the game. What happens if your heal grimoire resolves after a fire arrow? should that have happened? if you think that counters happen when you get hurt then perhaps it should but once you understand the way counters actually work then it makes sense. Does it make sense that you can activate your own counters? to a lot of people who start the game its a surprise, certainly by definition it makes no sense at all. Yumenero made the point that maxhp is more important than other stats because it removes the cards presence, i would counter with the fact that by reducing other stats you can reduce their usefulness, a card that has been made useless is often worse than a card that is dead.You make it apparent that your reason for wanting to change the rules is because you think that counters are weak enough without maxhp hate not triggering them, this can be seen most clearly in your statement that 'counters already have a weakness'. Which brings us full circle to that magical word, balance. Guardian was once stupidly strong, thankfully we were given a way to help deal with it enter warning knife. Before the advent of plentiful removal and stat powercreep maxhp was the answer to counterskills, its existence provided justification to the existence of guardian. The problem is that things have moved on, now stuff like serpent and bringer just rawpower through a guardian so maxhp feels surplus rather than a neccesity, this probably shouldnt have happened but the problem is not counters or maxhp hate its the stats of the counterskill units in comparison to the damage readily available in folart.

Tldr: maxhp is supposed to be the counter to counterskills, powercreep in the damage department has outpaced the powercreep in the survivablity of the the counterskill wielding units.

Yumenoryu wrote:Your analogy is flawed. It may be a "stat" in the sense that it is a parameter of the unit, but it is the only parameter (besides current HP) that affects the unit's existence on the field. As per your example, decreasing Agility to 0 or beyond does not eliminate that unit's presence on the field. Reducing any true stat (Damage, Agility, Defense) reduces that unit's viability or usefulness, but not its presence on the field. Reducing Max Hp to 0 or beyond removes that card's presence on the field. Simple as that. It is comparing apples to apples, though one may be red and the other green. That, in my opinion, is at least one reason why reducing Max HP should trigger a counter skill.

Bolded quote of yours.You're being a hypocrite.It does not always remove a unit for maxhp, just like other stat adjustments sometimes do remove them.Let me guess you dislike Belfy's start skill.

Lowering a units MaxHP does not remove their presence.If Black Dragonfly attacks a guardian the guardian does not counter, but neither did that attack remove her.She can still counter as well, provided the hit is 40dmg or less.

Frankly put, most of this argument is semantics and just plain down right **** over nothing.Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too.I find it down right hilarious people want to be able to exploit the good side of the counter skill (salamander on a star dragon ect) but when something can actually circumvent all those exploits, they ****.

Yumenoryu wrote:Your analogy is flawed. It may be a "stat" in the sense that it is a parameter of the unit, but it is the only parameter (besides current HP) that affects the unit's existence on the field. As per your example, decreasing Agility to 0 or beyond does not eliminate that unit's presence on the field. Reducing any true stat (Damage, Agility, Defense) reduces that unit's viability or usefulness, but not its presence on the field. Reducing Max Hp to 0 or beyond removes that card's presence on the field. Simple as that. It is comparing apples to apples, though one may be red and the other green. That, in my opinion, is at least one reason why reducing Max HP should trigger a counter skill.

Bolded quote of yours.You're being a hypocrite.It does not always remove a unit for maxhp, just like other stat adjustments sometimes do remove them.Let me guess you dislike Belfy's start skill.

Lowering a units MaxHP does not remove their presence.If Black Dragonfly attacks a guardian the guardian does not counter, but neither did that attack remove her.She can still counter as well, provided the hit is 40dmg or less.

Frankly put, most of this argument is semantics and just plain down right **** over nothing.Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too.I find it down right hilarious people want to be able to exploit the good side of the counter skill (salamander on a star dragon ect) but when something can actually circumvent all those exploits, they ****.

Quit holding a double standard.

My argument is elementary: I argued that Max HP, like current HP, can close a unit. I did not say that it must ALWAYS close a unit. Follow -- suppose for a moment that Girl Combat Priest has reduced Guardian's Max HP from 70 to 40. Then, Francis attacks Guardian and reduces Guardian's Max HP from 40 to 0. Guardian, then, must close because its current HP is zero (the practical effect of lower the unit's Max HP to 0). Take, for example, a unit with a counter skill and exactly 40 Max HP, Sergis. If Francis attack Sergis, then his Max HP is reduced to 0 and that unit closes.

Now, as to why this is not semantics: Suppose a unit was to have their Agility nerfed into oblivion. This unit, besides likely being the last one to operate in combat, would never die (as a Max HP effect MIGHT) as a direct (though likely will die as the PROXIMATE cause, what you're arguing) result of the Agility. Now, as for Belfyna's start skill, it is VITAL to recognize that Belfyna does damage BASED upon a unit's agility. This is important -- there is nothing inherent in Agility which could close a unit. Inherent in Max HP is the ability to close a unit (though understand, it does not mean it always must), which is why your analogy likening Agility to Max HP does not flow.

Xovian wrote:My point still stands, you hold a double standard, you want to be able to exploit the ability for your own sake but desire no down side for it.

Your point rests on flawed premises: 1) I believe it has been established that there are more than just this downside to counter-skills; 2) I never wished for counter-skills to have no downsides; if I did, then I would have advocated for more than just this change to the rule. Furthermore, I don't believe I've ever said that I USE counter-skills in any of my files.

This is a theoretical discussion and while it's possible that an opinion may be biased because of self-interest, this is not the case here. This is a discussion on what the rules should be and why. Staging ad hominem attacks do nothing to further the discussion. My discussion was limited to why your analogy and its applicability to the current rule was wrong. Stay on topic, be civil, and refrain from putting words into people's mouths. Thank you.

To be slightly more on topic, a lot of discussion has been made as to this rule's applicability to Guardian and Star Dragon; however,these are not the only cards with counter-skills. Most newer units with counter-skills have a limitation built into the counter (i.e. Joachim, Langbart, Sergis, Lion General). If it was believed that this rule would overpower Guardian and Star Dragon, wouldn't the more reasonable resolution be to rework those units counters rather than diminish the ability wholesale? Food for thought.

Yumenoryu wrote:This is a theoretical discussion and while it's possible that an opinion may be biased because of self-interest, this is not the case here.

So you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Glad we cleared that up.Piss and moan all you want, I don't see this changing anytime soon, cause frankly its probably the worst complaint i've seen on the forum in a long while.I'm done here.

First of all, thanks for posting a substantive response. There's a lot to respond to, so I'm going to have to answer point by point:

Spears wrote: Your current argument simply revolves around you wishing the mechanics of the game to be different because you feel that they should be,

I understand that my current argument revolves around me wishing the mechanics were different- that's essentially the point. I'm disputing what I believe to be unfair or silly mechanics. It would be nice to get some sort of official response on this to see if such changes are even possible, to save all of us some time. Perhaps we SHOULD be discussing whether counters should be checked at each stage of the grimoire- I feel that we should be able to discuss such things in this forum dedicated to advanced rules discussion.

Spears wrote: i could as well argue that counters should be checked at each stage of a grimoire or that closing should resolve after each grimoire/openskill, i dont though because i understand the rules of the game. What happens if your heal grimoire resolves after a fire arrow? should that have happened? if you think that counters happen when you get hurt then perhaps it should but once you understand the way counters actually work then it makes sense. Does it make sense that you can activate your own counters? to a lot of people who start the game its a surprise, certainly by definition it makes no sense at all.

I apologize for taking offense if you didn't mean it that way, but please don't patronize me. I understand the rules of the game, and I understand the way counters actually work. I'm simply suggesting that they no longer work the way they should. Perhaps that is reason enough for change in the mechanics. Given that our game experience is mediated through a single client, this seems like something that should not only be possible, but an advantage of the medium. Also, I would argue that by definition, it makes perfect sense to trigger your own counters. Damage is taken, and counter triggers. It makes perfect sense within the definition of counter in terms of damage, if not in terms of who is doing the damage. That said, a discussion on the fairness of such mechanics is certainly available.

Spears wrote: Yumenero made the point that maxhp is more important than other stats because it removes the cards presence, i would counter with the fact that by reducing other stats you can reduce their usefulness, a card that has been made useless is often worse than a card that is dead.

Yumenoryu addresses this above, but I should clarify that reducing Max HP both reduces a card's usefulness (its durability) and also closes a unit. It does both, whereas reducing other parameters does not.

Spears wrote: You make it apparent that your reason for wanting to change the rules is because you think that counters are weak enough without maxhp hate not triggering them, this can be seen most clearly in your statement that 'counters already have a weakness'. Which brings us full circle to that magical word, balance. Guardian was once stupidly strong, thankfully we were given a way to help deal with it enter warning knife. Before the advent of plentiful removal and stat powercreep maxhp was the answer to counterskills, its existence provided justification to the existence of guardian. The problem is that things have moved on, now stuff like serpent and bringer just rawpower through a guardian so maxhp feels surplus rather than a neccesity, this probably shouldnt have happened but the problem is not counters or maxhp hate its the stats of the counterskill units in comparison to the damage readily available in folart.

The problem here is that guardian isn't the only card that uses counters. If Guardian is too strong, nerf Guardian. The mechanic shouldn't suffer because of a single unit. Moreover, I still don't see how this answers the current problem. Having a unit counter after max hp reduction that functions essentially like attack, bypasses defense, and reduces the effect of healing doesn't seem so unreasonable. What made warning knife great was that is reduced guardian to 10 hp, and not that it avoided a counter.

No it doesnt make sense that counters can be activated by yourself, outside the realms of alteil a counterattack refers to a retaliatory action you cant hit yourself then hit somebody else and claim you were counterattacking them. It only makes sense once you get past initial expectations and instead learn that in alteil counters are activated by taking damage.

Agreed, and that's why I stated that it makes sense in terms of damage, if not in terms of who is doing that damage. I'm perfectly comfortable with having that discussion as well, but to me they are two separate issues. Like you said, counters are activated by taking damage. Reducing current hp when one reduces max hp is effectively causing damage, and thus a counter should trigger. Could we get some sort of official response on this please? Is it even possible to change game mechanics because I feel like I've made my argument as to why we should and I don't really want to pursue this if nothing can come out of it.